Upgrading from Informality Enhancer - Urban...

1

Upgrading from Informality EnhancerInformality and DevelopmentInformality and ResilienceInformality and the City Resilience Profiling Tool

With the support of

3

Upgrading from Informality EnhancerInformality and DevelopmentInformality and ResilienceInformality and the City Resilience Profiling Tool

With the support of

5

The Resilience Enhancers developed under the City Resilience Profiling Tool (CRPT) isolate the cross-cutting themes that underpin UN-Habitat's resilience building methodology into an advocacy and training tool.

The Enhancers provide both an understanding of the relationship between the topic in focus (i.e. Gender, Climate Action, Humanitarian Action among others) and development, global agendas, resilience and the CRPT. In the case of the latter, the indicators related to the topic have been extracted from the global CRPT and are included in the Enhancers. They can provide a first approach to the resilience related matter, taking into consideration the systemic, holistic and comprehensive understanding of urban resilience that moves away from assessment in silos.

The objective of the Enhancer is to help governmental actors or other partners to assess the resilience of their urban settlements but while putting a special focus on certain topics that need to be addressed such as gender or climate Action. They can be used as a starting point to assess resilience and the matter related to urban settings, and to discuss how to take it further.

The Upgrading from Informality Enhancer firstly explores the links between informality, urban development and resilience before detailing the specific indicators from the CRPT that can be applied to obtain a snapshot of the city from this same perspective.

As for the CRPT, the Upgrading from Informality Enhancer indicators are mapped in parallel with the targets of global agendas such as the Sustainable Development Goals and New Urban Agenda.

Using the Enhancers

The Enhancers can be used as training or advocacy tools within a city by local governments actors or partners. The Enhancers also serve to existing tools, approaches and methodologies that are being implemented in the city. The objective can therefore be 1. initiate discussion and thinking around the issue in focus and/or resilience building, 2. generate a snapshot of the city on the issue in focus and/ or resilience, 3. counter-check that existing tools are fully capturing the issue in focus.

1. Initiate Discussion The indicators extracted from the CRPT (Indicators in the CRPT) can be used to start the discussion around resilience and the issue in focus within the city. An initiating body, such as a specific department within the municipality, can initiate the collection of data for the indicators and call for a half-day workshop to validate or complete the responses. Other departments within the municipality should be invited as well as NGOs working in the city, utilities, civil society groups, among others. The Enhancer can as such become a shared project to initiate discussion on resilience. Once the exercise has been completed, contact us to find out how to take it further.

2. Snapshot The outcome of the workshop is a partial snapshot of the city focused on the issue in question. This can be shared among all stakeholders and used to inform initial decision-making and priority setting. Knowing which are the strengths and the weaknesses in relation to a certain topic within the city is going to allow local governments to think about the appropriate measures to make the city more resilient. All of the cities that have completed this exercise are invited to share their findings on the City Map on UN-Habitat's Urban Resilience Hub. Sharing these findings will be useful to locate other cities facing similar challenges and to start a discussion on how to tackle them.

3. Counter-check Many cities are already implementing tools and methodologies to build resilience. The Questionnaire within the Enhancers serves as an approach to evaluate how well the tool is capturing the issue in question. Applying the Questionnaire to existing tools will provide a similar snapshot on the city. Therefore, it will allow cities to assess if their tools need some adjustments or if they are already capturing well the issues in questions. Having a preliminary idea on the resilience of the city is going to be helpful to take the appropriate measures and to counter-check the efficiency of the ones that have been taken.

Disclaimer

The Enhancers are under continual development and should not be taken as complete or comprehensive resilience tools. They serve to increase engagement, validate approaches and lead to further engagement of resilience building through the CRPT.

9

Disclaimer

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities,

or concerning delimitation of its frontiers.

It is important to acknowledge that the approaches and methodologies detailed may not be wholly applicable in all contexts. UN-Habitat specifically does not make any warranties or representations as to the accuracy or completeness of this methodology. Under no circumstances shall UN-Habitat be liable for any loss, damage, liability or expense incurred or suffered that is claimed to have resulted from the use of this Guide, including, without

limitation, any fault, error, omission with respect thereto.

Barcelona, October 2018City Resilience Profiling Programme

UN-Habitat

10

Table of contents

11

1 Introduction........................................................................................2 Informality and Urban Development.................................................3 Informality and Resilience.................................................................4 Informality and the CRPT...................................................................5 Informality Indicators.........................................................................6 Informality Questionnaire..................................................................7 References.........................................................................................

12142023283842

13

Background

Informality is an increasingly global urban phenomenon with more than one quarter of the world’s urban population living in informal settlements. While urban informality is usually associated with developing contexts, inadequate living conditions and informal employment are now also manifesting in the Global North and emerging in diverse systems and typologies.

Causes | Rationale | Impact on people’s lives

Urban informality can be analysed through a cross-sectoral understanding of urban dynamics, such as population growth, lack of affordable housing programs and incentives, economic vulnerability, weak governance policies and regulations pertaining to land values and rights, as well as forced displacement. In this rapidly urbanising world, existing urban structures are often unprepared and lack the time or resources to accommodate this human flow, leading to the decentralization of urban areas and the development of informal settlements on the urban fringe or the occupation of empty or dilapidated buildings.1 Often these contexts expose informal dwellers to spatial, social and economic inequalities, resulting in marginalization and segregation. Populations exposed to varying forms of informality regularly face vulnerable living conditions due to a myriad of factors including the constant threat of eviction, higher exposure to health risks and natural disasters, unsteady wages, hazardous working environments (exploitation, discrimination), as well as lack of access to basic infrastructure, services and social security (no rights to insurance, pension, etc.).2

Why is it important to continue tackling urban informality? Recent figures estimate that by 2050, 70% of the world’s population will be living in urban areas. This exponential growth will dramatically affect the physical nature of urban contexts and poses a significant challenge for urban planners and policy-makers. Furthermore, cities are facing the urgent need to rethink and adapt to a new type of urban system emerging as a consequence of globalization. While responding to new challenges regarding evolving economic structures, sustainable urban infrastructure, quality of life, social integration and governance, it is crucial that cities ensure a decent level of well-being to populations. In developing countries urban informality plays an integral role in the economic system – not only contributing to economies of scale both directly and indirectly, but often serving as the primary driver for growth. Some sectors of the informal economy, however, rely on precarious, low- or even unpaid employment opportunities for unskilled workers – often female and migrant workers – which may hinder their self-reliance or inhibit them to benefit from urban efficiency.3 Moreover, those living in informal settlements are often deprived of adequate provision of utilities, education and health facilities, or transportation services. These circumstances needlessly prolong or interrupt daily routines as well as increase vulnerability to environmental risks and socioeconomic disruptions, even more so in the case of women and children, and can lead to families living in perpetuating poverty for generations. Due to these dynamics, urban areas with numerous slums pay an economic, environmental and social 'cost' that affects their prosperity and sustainable development.4

Commitment by UN-Habitat

Since the Habitat II conference in 1996, UN-Habitat has recognised how urban expansion across the Global South increasingly occurs informally, often stripping people of their rights to property and adequate housing, and has acknowledged the links between urban poverty, employment and the informal economy.5 While the density of cities creates ideal places for active knowledge exchange and turns them into bustling production and innovation centres, fast-paced, unplanned urbanization often generates an unregistered work force and a population in poor or informal living conditions. Committed to ensuring urban growth is inclusive, sustainable and resilient, UN-Habitat has, over the past decades, initiated programmes that encourage the provision of adequate utilities or support the formalisation of land tenure. The agency’s City Resilience Profiling Tool (CRPT) goes beyond sectoral strategies to adopt a holistic and people-centred approach that studies urban development and supports local governments with evidence-based recommendations for resilience-building actions. The CRPT pays particular attention to integrating cross-cutting issues such as informality into its methodology, in an effort to ensure that no one is left behind. The CRPT mindfully incorporates ways to identify and analyse the presence, attributes and impacts of urban informality as well as its potential root causes and relevant stakeholders. The Enhancer provides an overview of how the CRPT approaches the study of informal activity in a city and includes a list of indicators that may help local governments recognise the scale of informality in their city. Additionally, to fully grasp the reach and impact of the issue, officials should consider complementing their reading of this Enhancer with information from the Gender Equality, Infrastructure, Human Rights and Climate Action Enhancers, as well as with the Social Resilience Guide produced by the CRPT.

1.Introduction

14

Seen as a prominent global topic, current studies on urban informality dimensions have shed light on the challenge of dealing with the “exceptions to the order of formal urbanization”.6 Despite policy-makers, urban planners and scholars increasingly acknowledging the urgency for a more inclusive and sustainable approach towards informality, a profound understanding of this omnipresent mode of urbanisation and its complex dimensions – spatial, social and economic – is still needed.

Defining concept: Interpretation of informality from the development field

The ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ dichotomy has been used among both academia and development agents as central concepts in the discussion on, and analysis of, ongoing urban development. Generally, ‘formal’ urban development is understood to comply with the legal and regulatory frameworks established by the state in terms of spatial, social and economic features. Conversely, informality relates to processes unfolding outside of regulations and laws, in particular when applied to the built environment (e.g. tenure, land regulation and housing), the urban economy (e.g. employment, extraction of fiscal revenues and economic production), and the provision of services (basic infrastructure and public services).7 While this distinction into legal versus illegal activity is commonly used to understand informality, it must be noted that informality often takes place in the intermediate or ‘grey’ areas of regulation.

Action regarding informality since the 1990s

Over the past few decades much effort has been devoted to extending land-use planning and development regulation to incorporate all forms of urban development. However, informally developed areas were, and often are to this day, neglected or demolished, and inhabitants marginalised or periodically evicted. Initial approaches to deal with urban informality in a more inclusive manner originated in the 1990s when governments started regularising land inhabited by informal settlers through formally recognizing land rights and providing settlers with secure tenure. Upgrading programmes also grew more frequent and are now widely adopted throughout the developing world. These programmes focus on the provision or improvement of basic services and the retrofitting of infrastructure to ensure compliance with planning and building regulations, as well as on the strengthening of institutional responses.

Considering the predominantly structural interventions of these programmes, scholars have highlighted the need to also take informal communities’ agency and capacity for self-organization into account.8 While the negative impacts of living and/or working in informal settings are well-documented, working outside (though interlinked with) the formal framework is at the same time increasingly understood to provide the context in which gaps left by governments – in terms of labour markets, utilities, transportation services or social protection – can be overcome. Recent movements in the urban development field reflect this insight to take advantage of – rather than work against – the state of exception embodied by informal settlements and activities, all the while valuing the duties held by public actors in fulfilling inhabitants’ rights to employment,

housing, etc.9 With this in mind, planning processes and other local governmental strategies can become more effective when encouraging participatory processes that include informal communities within discussions, seeing as a democratized and resilient approach is often better equipped to mitigate and overcome vulnerabilities.

Several documents building upon the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (set when the Sustainable Development Goals were announced in New York in September 2015, see infra) have tentatively started to incorporate some of these takeaways. While over the past decades a lot of progress has been made in thinking about informality, a lot of work is still ahead in order to better understand people’s living and working conditions and develop strategies to prevent future urban informality.

2.Informality and Urban Development

17

Informality in the run-up to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Ever since the Habitat II conference in Istanbul in 1996, UN-Habitat has articulated the urgent need to address living conditions in informal settlements. Acting on this insight, it instituted the Cities Alliance in 1999, in collaboration with the World Bank. The Alliance adopted the structural upgrading approach and developed the Slum Upgrading Action Plan which brings together UN agencies, development banks, NGOs and private sector actors around the shared goal of providing 100 million people with basic services10 over the next 20 years.11 In 2008, UN-Habitat launched a complimentary project, the Participatory Slum Upgrading Programme, as a joint effort between UN-Habitat, the European Commission, and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States. Adopting an ‘at scale’, integrated approach, this programme looks beyond the spatial and physical to include economic and social dimensions of informality, and aims to empower slum dwellers and encourage positive mindsets among state actors.12

This strong commitment by the international community to better conditions for people in some of the most vulnerable conditions was framed within the Millennium Development Goals, with target 7.D requiring the achievement of “by 2020, a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers”. By 2014, up to 320 million people were lifted out of informal conditions, yet absolute figures on slum dwellers continue to rise and may increase threefold by 2050.13

Therefore, local community stakeholders, NGOs, private sector entities, development banks, international organisations and member states jointly reiterated the challenge and importance of eradicating poverty and upgrading standards of living through the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

18

Sustainable Development Goals

Building upon the MDGs’ achievements, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that outline the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development aim to collectively achieve economic, social and environmental sustainable development that integrates all people, including those in informal settings, and produces long-lasting gains.14

Linking to a number of issues related to informality and in particular those related to slums, SDG 1 targets the eradication of extreme poverty and the halving of the population living in poverty. It encourages the instalment of social protection systems, improvements to access to basic services and the provision of secure tenure rights to land. The Goal also addresses the reduction of exposure and vulnerability of the poor as well as those in vulnerable situations, and calls for policy frameworks at different scales to be based on pro-poor development strategies.

SDG 11 recognises that cities increasingly host the bulk of the global population and urges for sound and inclusive urban policy and planning that reduce vulnerability in the lives of urban residents everywhere, starting with those in the most precarious, often informal, situations. It aims to improve access to housing, basic services, transport systems, green and public spaces, as well as to upgrade slums, scale down cities’ impacts on the environment, reduce vulnerability to disaster risks and empower urban populations to participate in the planning and management of their communities.

The elevation of living conditions and easier access to utility networks are accompanied by an emphasis on advancing the inclusiveness of economic growth, as embodied in SDG 8. Goal 8 addresses some of the causes of informal activities, such as unemployment and discrimination, as well as its negative impacts by targeting per capita income growth, supporting job creation and entrepreneurship, formalising enterprises, reducing youth unemployment and protecting labour rights. It aims to increase people’s opportunities to engage in the formal economy and empower them to exercise their human right to work, and the provision of decent working conditions, protection against unemployment, and equitable pay.15

Sustainable Development Goal 8Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

Sustainable Development Goal 1End poverty in all its forms everywhere

Sustainable Development Goal 11Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

19

New Urban Agenda

Resulting from the Habitat III conference in Quito in 2016, this vision document will guide local and national governments in the planning, management and financing of urban development over the next 20 years. The New Urban Agenda (NUA) stresses the need to consider the relationship between cities, urban peripheries and rural areas and highlights the ‘right to the city’ perspective. The NUA acknowledges the challenges that informal settlements and informal economic activities present to the attainment of inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities. It is clear that future urban governance will need to recognise informality as a part of the urban reality, in order to take effective action and upgrade conditions to ensure dignified lives for all. While designing specific actions addressing the lack of tenure security, access to services, formal employment and social protection does not lie within the scope of the document, the NUA presents pathways for using national urban policies to integrate informal activity within local and national action, as emerges from some of its articles.16

Article 59 -We commit ourselves to recognizing the contribution of the working poor in the informal economy, particularly women, including unpaid, domestic and migrant workers, to the urban economies, taking into account national circumstances. Their livelihoods, working conditions and income security, legal and social protection, access to skills, assets and other support services, and voice and representation should be enhanced.

Article 109 - We will consider increased allocations of financial and human resources, as appropriate, for the upgrading and, to the extent possible, prevention of slums and informal settlements, with strategies that go beyond physical and environmental improvements to ensure that slums and informal settlements are integrated into the social, economic, cultural and political dimensions of cities. These strategies should include, as applicable, access to sustainable, adequate, safe and affordable housing, basic and social services, and safe, inclusive, accessible, green and quality public spaces, and they should promote security of tenure and its regularization, as well as measures for conflict prevention and mediation.17

20

Several linkages exist between the occurrence of informality in a city and a number of levels of resilience, ranging from the individual to the urban scale. First, when the urban poor do not possess the financial capacity to access land zoned for housing, it may force them to settle on sites that are not destined or suited for residential use. Often these sites are located in areas that are more prone to natural hazards, such as slopes and riverbanks, near industries and dump sites, or flood-prone zones. In addition, housing materials used in informal settlements are often less likely to withstand extreme events. Aside from this socio-spatial exposure to hazards, informal dwellers usually find themselves on the periphery of urban areas, disconnected from utilities, social services, and transport networks. Any resilience analysis or action to improve a city’s resilience should acknowledge how coupling these vulnerable, marginalising or even excluding conditions with a shock can turn hazards into disasters, and further exacerbate underlying socio-economic inequalities. To leave no one behind, policy-makers will need to develop inclusive resilience building efforts that put the needs and resilience of those in the most vulnerable of situations first. At the same time, informal activities result from degrees of resilience demonstrated by individuals, as inhabitants fill gaps left by governments in terms of economic development and service provision (e.g. transportation, job creation, social care, affordable housing). In some cities, for instance, informal living consists of the illegal occupation of derelict or empty buildings, often located in city centres. As these solutions occur outside of regulative and legal frameworks, they do, however, leave citizens vulnerable to a number of insecurities and risks, e.g. by non-compliance with building codes or safety regulations. Informal activities may therefore answer citizens’ needs in a concrete moment, but they can prove to hinder the development of long-term, sustainable forms of resilience. Nonetheless, considering urban development happens increasingly informally, the human agency at play in these processes provides duty-bearers with opportunities to learn from the resourcefulness of people in generating livelihoods and providing services. When designing strategies to improve overall urban resilience, local governments should guarantee that these are not implemented at the cost of existing levels of individual resilience. For instance, when far-reaching measures are required to bring about medium- and long-term continuity and sustainability, the rights and interests of inhabitants in some of the most vulnerable situations of all should at all times be a priority. Decision-makers should therefore seek to prevent forced evictions or displacement – for instance by adopting the continuum of land rights approach that considers a variety of land rights between the extremes of formal and informal that exist on the ground – and provide dignified and adequate reallocation. By engaging people in informal living and/or working conditions and giving them a voice in policy and planning, we can build upon the social capital displayed in informality to contribute to a collective, sustainable and inclusive resilience. Informal activities also demonstrate a profound entanglement between sectors, where the operation of an informal transport service constitutes the livelihood of an entire family and arranges transportation to job sites for others, or where the front steps of informal homes provide the working space for artisans to create and sell their products, and for which they depend in turn on the availability of water and energy.18 An integrated, transdisciplinary approach in decision-making will be needed to better understand, map and assess the connections between formal and informal systems, and guarantee informal communities benefit from the advantages of urban development. Adopting a holistic multi-stakeholder, multi-scalar and multi-sectoral framework, the CRPT is well-positioned to analyse a city’s capacities and provide local governments with data-informed advice on actions that strengthen urban resilience, addressing informality and eradicating poverty in the process.

3.Informality and Resilience

23

To fully understand and recognise the dynamics of urban informality and its impacts on populations, as well as to devise effective action, reliable, localized and standardized data and research is required. Only through such an evidence-based approach can cities seek to develop inclusive and lasting strategies, plans and projects addressing informality in its various incarnations. Viewing informality through a set of thematic lenses can support governments in studying and understanding the shapes and impacts of informality in their cities and on their population, and help identify course for action.

Furthermore, through its holistic and people-centred methodology, the CRPT highlights the importance of considering the concept of vulnerability as a key characteristic of the various dimensions of informality. Many of the urban dwellers exposed to varied forms of informality often already face conditions that create vulnerability, such as limited physical or financial capacity. The CRPT identifies personal, social and environmental circumstances that may lead to additional vulnerabilities, and recognises a range of categories of people living in vulnerable situations which should be given particular consideration when found in informal contexts, in order to achieve social equality, participation and inclusion: (a) children without parental care as well as, children living in the streets; (b) homeless people; (c) poor people; (d) lone and dependent elderly; (e) ethnic minorities; (f) people with disabilities; (g) people living in marginalized communities; (h) people suffering from drugs and alcohol addictions, people deprived of liberty or on probation, homeless people, LGBTI, victims of domestic violence, victims of human trafficking, refugees and immigrants, etc.

With this in mind, efforts to address urban informality, poverty reduction and social inclusion in development practice as well as in academic debate highlight five main areas in which informal activity manifests, namely 1) land and housing, 2) economy, 3) basic infrastructure, 4) mobility, and 5) social inclusion and protection. Integrating these into a cross-sectoral diagnosis of informality, the CRPT aims to tackle the physical, economic and social dimensions of this global urban phenomenon.

Land and housing

Regulatory regimes established between people – individuals or groups – and land intend to define the ways in which land rights and rules are allocated, transferred and conducted within societies. Rapid urbanization processes can generate an insatiable need for land that may result in illegal occupation and the consequent lack of security of land tenure in urban contexts, a frequent dynamic which may lead to the emergence of informal settlements. Land tenure regulations should be well-defined in order to provide security of tenure for all inhabitants and fulfil the human rights to property as well as housing19, and should thus prevent informal rents, squats and exploitation.20

In addition to being under constant threat of eviction, informal residents often settle in remote and/or environmentally hazardous areas, or abandoned buildings in run-down city centres, characterized by a lack of access to basic infrastructure and services, poor structural housing quality and frequent overcrowding.21

To this end, the continuum of land rights framework is gaining traction around the globe, as it adopts an inclusive, pro-poor and gender-responsive approach which reflects and recognizes a range of formal and non-formal tenure categories that are already in place, incorporating rights that are documented as well as undocumented, and formal as well as informal, to ease provision of tenure security to groups in vulnerable situations.22

Economy

Economic informality in urban areas relates to all unregulated activities, enterprises, services or individual workers that are not under a nation’s labour regulation, registration, income taxation or licensing. Economic informality therefore comprehends a huge diversity of situations and could be present in a range of sectors, a designation often representing an integral part of a cities’ economic life. Informal economic activity contributes to employment and income generation both in formal and informal markets. Governments encounter challenges, however, in quantifying the exact contribution of the informal economy to a nation’s GDP or a city’s GCP, owing to the fact that revenues obtained from informal markets evade taxation.

According to ILO (2002), informal employment should be understood as encompassing a continuum of relationships that includes, but is not limited to: own-account workers and employers employed in their own informal sector enterprises; family workers; employees holding informal jobs (i.e. jobs not covered by legal protection or social security); members of informal producers’ cooperatives; and own-account workers

4.Informality and the CRPT

24

producing goods exclusively for own final use by their household.23 People in these contexts often face challenges such as unhealthy working conditions, long working hours, irregular and/or low pay, lack of social security regulations, threat of eviction, forced labour and discrimination. Women are often found in the most vulnerable situations, because of a lack in social security coverage and insufficient access to better job opportunities. This urges for more gender-disaggregated statistics, particularly in the case of domestic and home-based workers.24 The lack of protection, rights and representation leaves informal workers exposed to high levels of dependency and vulnerability, and is oftentimes further coupled with high poverty rates and low social mobility.25

Basic infrastructure

When planning city extensions to accommodate an increase in urban population, local governments integrate the provision of adequate utilities and social services for their inhabitants in development projects. The unplanned and unregulated nature of informal land development, on the contrary, entails that for those living in informal settlements, coverage and access to basic infrastructure and services, such as water, electricity, lighting, sanitation, waste management and healthcare, are not considered. Moreover, even if available, due to poverty and low-income levels, the majority of informal dwellers may not be able to afford access to basic infrastructure systems, therefore remaining excluded from existing regulated networks.26 To fill this gap, alternatives may be adopted by creating illegal and inadequate connections to utility networks which in turn increase exposure to risk. Women and girls are likely to be negatively affected by these practices considering they are often responsible for indoor household tasks such as cooking and cleaning that require regular use of these potentially hazardous water, electricity and gas supplies.

Mobility

Urban mobility systems are considered key features in the urbanization process as they shape all urban forms and dynamics. Growing demand for urban mobility around the globe has been challenging cities’ responses in developing efficient, effective, and accessible public transport networks for all. The corresponding gaps in urban mobility are commonly filled by new, unregulated ways of transportation as informal carriers emerge and become a recurrent alternative to the lack in public transport coverage and/or access. Informal transport, in general, incorporates all kinds of transport services that operate outside official regulatory frameworks of both the public and private transport sectors. These networks are usually managed by informal entrepreneurs operating minibuses, midi buses, shared taxis and motorcycle taxis. Services are generally unscheduled and on demand-responsive routes. They are often structured in ‘non-corporate’ models and provided by single-person enterprises that operate outside the tax system.27 Considering the oftentimes complementary character of informal to formal provisions of transport, any form of transportation service that is not regulated or even deregulated is commonly referred to as “paratransit”, of which the defining parameters may depend on the context.

While these informal transport systems help meet the needs of many urban residents, they may in some cases pose threats to road safety and the environment, adding to traffic congestion and air pollution. Additionally, considering the users of informal services primarily stem from poor families living on the fringes, they often need to make multiple transfers to reach job locations. Their transport expenses can mount up to a quarter of their daily salaries, perpetuating the inequalities associated with socio-geographic marginalisation and un(der)-coverage by public transportation.28

Social inclusion and protection

In many cities informal living and working unmistakably fill or even shape the streetscape, and the people in these conditions depend on local governments to provide them with basic support programmes, such as social protection floors that include basic health care and income security for those in need (children, elderly, etc.). Informal contexts, however, often cause people in vulnerable situations to fall outside of the protection of the state or municipal governments. Some groups, more than others, are subject to social exclusion and the provision of basic social services, or furthermore the acquisition of land or housing, private vehicles etc., due to a lack of the required identification. Oftentimes refugees or

27

temporarily displaced migrants, homeless people or children living in the streets are unable to obtain the necessary documents that would allow them to benefit from formally provided services. This leads them to access informal labour markets and transportation services or set up informal connections to utility networks etc.

Additionally, informal settlements located on urban peripheries are likely to be spatially excluded from urban networks. The settlements may fall outside of municipal boundaries or the local government’s purview and can therefore remain un(der)-serviced. Exposed to circumstances that may cause vulnerability, such as poverty, overcrowding, lack of formal access to basic infrastructure and services, health risks, and natural hazards, these geographically, and consequently socially, marginalised communities struggle to be included in the scope as well as in the making of public policies and planning.

The voices and demands of all these women and men, girls and boys often remain unheard due to insufficient or ineffective representation in decision-making processes at different scales, and results in their needs (e.g. access to sanitary facilities, health insurance or social care, secure work spaces) rarely being considered in labour, infrastructure, housing or social policies and plans.

Conclusion

The five lenses discussed above demonstrate the complexity and dynamic interplay between different urban contexts and the needs of women and girls, men and boys in informal settings. They urge for an approach that recognises the city as a system of systems in which actions in one sector affect operations in another. State actors should understand, study and tackle urban informality from an integrated approach that considers impacts in all relevant sectors and at all scales, and enables the engagement of a wide range of stakeholders when developing strategies, policies, plans and actions.

However, oftentimes the character of un-registration that typifies informality makes activities escape the scope of official statistics. Vendors, carriers and street children may be visible in the street scape, but their exact numbers remain unrecognized or are at best difficult to measure. In many contexts, local governments do not dispose of the significant amounts of time, as well as financial and human resources needed to develop more precise estimates – the prerequisite to devising effective action. This may hinder the completion of data collection or could potentially distort findings on which recommendations for action are based. Using the lenses as entry points, the CRPT can help local governments identify gaps in data availability as well as center the scope of their data gathering efforts.

At the same time, the CRPT supports officials to acknowledge the transversal and complex nature of informal living and working, while reflecting on the increased vulnerabilities of in particular women, children, youths, elderly, migrants and the urban poor. A holistic, people-centred mindset will be indispensable when upgrading standards of living in informal settlements or improving conditions for informal workers, and will require strong political will to overcome the many challenges – be they human, financial or institutional – involved. Taking informed action, however, has proven to open pathways to economic growth, shared prosperity as well as social inclusion, and therefore promises to generate considerable returns on investments.

28

The following chapter demonstrates the alignment between the principles and methodology of the Upgrading from Informality Enhancer and the City Resilience Profiling Tool (CRPT). The CRPT aims to first and foremost identify the various forms of informality in a city, before moving to an in-depth understanding of the causes and impacts of this cross-cutting issue when devising Actions for Resilience. Looking through the five lenses – land and housing, economy, basic infrastructure, mobility, and social inclusion and protection – the CRPT filter of informality indicators incorporates the indicators from all elements and components of the tool’s two data collection sets (SET 1 and 4), that measure the types of informality in a city. This will provide local governments with a well-rounded view on the physical, economic and social dimensions of informality in their cities. The study of informality in the economy, mobility, land and housing, and infrastructure sectors focuses on present, measurable – and therefore often visible – proof of informality, whereas the social dimension is analysed by identifying 1) services from which groups in marginalized communities are excluded, and 2) existing barriers to service provision or access to services that may indicate informal contexts (e.g. geospatial settings, normative frameworks, socioeconomic capacity). The filter classifies indicators into ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ relations, respectively referring to whether an indicator in itself shows the occurrence of informality, or whether a conclusive answer on the existence of informality depends on looking at the flipside of the coin in combination with data from other indicators or further contextual research. In addition, the CRPT aims to determine the spatial dimension of informal activities in a city as much as possible. It gathers relevant GIS data, whenever available on the ground, in order to geolocate and further inform on the varying physical manifestations of urban informality. Indicators in data collection SET 4 carry references with their alignment to global frameworks, tools and indexes.

SET 1 - CityID SET 4 – Urban Elements

Questions directly indicating informality

6 61

Questions indirectly identifying informality

7 82

Questions with spatial data N / A 28

Total 13 143

156

5.Informality Indicators

29

SET 1

City ID

30

SET 4

1. Built Environment

31

SET 4

2. Supply Chain & Logistics

32

SET 4

3. Basic infrastructure

33

SET 4


34

SET 4


SET 4

4. Mobility

35

SET 4

5. Municipal Public Services

SET 4

6. Social Inclusion and Protection

36

SET 4

7. Economy

37

SET 4

8. Ecology

38

6.Informality QuestionnaireIn order to make the Upgrading from Informality Enhancer (UIE) effective and easily applicable, a semi-structured questionnaire format was adopted to internally evaluate the CRPT. This questionnaire is expected to support the CRPT in contributing to UN-Habitat’s work to support local governments in better understanding informality in cities as well as the impacts on people, and in developing strategies to improve informal living and working conditions. The questionnaire includes the following five sections:

1. Basic information for contextualisation2. Informality Targeting3. Informality Identification4. Informality-informed Actions for Resilience (A4Rs)5. M&E aspects for further applicability of recommendations

While the team in charge of the elaboration of the CRPT benefited from the support of various UN-Habitat specialists, the UIE questionnaire was designed as a complementary tool to support each team member in applying critical thinking when addressing informality.

The process of studying informality in a city should remain an iterative one, and it is expected that CRPT piloting in cities will bring new insights and enrich the current approach. At a later stage, the UIE is envisioned to lead to further research on the root causes and impacts of informality, and to contribute to broader policy-making and strategy development in cities, thus fulfilling a new role, and shifting from tool strengthening to capacity building in cities to address challenges.

1. Basic Information about CRPT

Analytical set Select: SET 1 to 4, or A4Rs

Urban Element Select: Element 1 to 8

(Supra) Component Full name

Expert in charge of the component Name and role in the project

Informality expert (countercheck) Name and role in the project

Date of assessment

39

2. Informality Targeting [component level]

Questions Answers

2.1 Is the component relevant for identifying informality?

Yes [ ] No [ ]Not determined yet [ ]

2.2 Select the lenses for which the component, or a part of its indicators, may be relevant

1. Land and Housing [ ]2. Economy [ ]3. Basic Infrastructure [ ]4. Mobility [ ]5. Social Inclusion and Protection [ ]6. Other [ ]

2.3 Is the component relevant for informality upgrading policies?

Yes [ ] No [ ]Not determined yet [ ]

3.Informality Identification [name the indicator or the supporting indicator

Questions Answers

3.1 Does the indicator refer to the informal use of land?Yes [ ] No [ ]

3.2 Does the indicator refer to the informal use of housing?Yes [ ] No [ ]

3.3 If the indicator refers to barriers in accessing utilities or social services, does it consider geospatial settings or socio-economic capacity as a barrier?

Yes [ ] No [ ]If not, explain why:

3.4 Does the indicator refer to informal provision of utilities or social services?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

3.5 Does the indicator refer to paratransit or informal transportation services?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

3.6 Does the indicator refer to informal production or consumption?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

3.7 Does the indicator collect data disaggregated for groups in marginalized communities?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

3.8 Does the indicator collect spatial data that can locate informal activity?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

40

4. Actions for Resilience [name the A4R relevant or the analysed component

Level of analysis

The articulation with the New Urban Agenda implies work at the following five levels. Specify whether the recommendation for action for resilience is informed by informality at each of these levels.

UN-Habitat thematic area of interest

Areas of interest for the identification of informality, according to UN-Habitat’s branch structure. Select every relevant one.

4.1 Local implementable actions


1. Urban legislation, land, governance [ ]2. Urban planning and design branch [ ]3. Urban economy [ ]4. Urban basic services [ ]5. Housing and slum upgrading [ ]6. Research & capacity development [ ]7. Risk reduction and rehabilitation [ ]

4.2 Financing the urbanisation



4.3 Strategies, planning, design



4.4 Existing rules and regulations



4.5 Harmonisation with national urban planning



41

5. M&E

Questions Answers

5.1 Are any informality-related baselines used in the analysis?


5.2 Are any informality-related aspects monitored when implementing the recommendations for actions for resi-lience?


5.3 Is any evaluation carried out in order to assess whe-ther the recommendations were implemented?


42

1. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) (2015). Habitat III Issue Papers 22 – Informal Settlements. Available online at: www.unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Habitat-III-Issue-Paper-22_Informal-Settlements.pdf (accessed on 10/07/2018).

2. United Nations (2016). Pretoria Declaration for Habitat III. “Informal Settlements”. Available online at: https://unhabitat.org/pretoria-declaration-on-informal-settlements/ (accessed on 12/07/2018).

3. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) (2009). Global Report on Human Settlements - Backgrounder. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat).

International Labour Organization (2013). Measuring informality: A statistical manual on the informal sector and informal employment. Available online at: www.ilo.org/global/publications/ilo-bookstore/order-online/books/WCMS_222979/lang--en/index.htm (accessed on 10/07/2018) 4. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) (2015). Habitat III Issue Papers 22 – Informal Settlements. Available online at: www.unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Habitat-III-Issue-Paper-22_Informal-Settlements.pdf (accessed on 10/07/2018).

5. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) (2006). Innovative Policies for the Urban Informal Economy. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat).Roy, A. (2005). “Urban Informality. Towards an Epistemology of Planning”. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71/2: 147.

6. Roy, A. (2005). “Urban Informality. Towards an Epistemology of Planning”. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71/2: 147.

7. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) (2009). Global Report on Human Settlements Planning Sustainable Cities. Available online at: www.unhabitat.org/books/global-report-on-human-settlements-2009-planning-sustainable-cities/ (accessed on 12/07/2018).

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) (2016). Issue Papers and Policy Units of the Habitat III Conference. Available online at: www.unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Habitat-III-Issue-Papers-and-Policy-Units.pdf (accessed on 13/07/2018).

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) (2016). UN-Habitat Support to Sustainable Urban Development in Kenya. Addressing Urban Informality. Available online at: www.unhabitat.org/books/un-habitat-support-to-sustainable-urban-development-in-kenya-volume-4/ (accessed on 13/07/2018).

8. Roy, A. (2012). "Urban informality: the production of space and practice of planning." The Oxford Handbook of Urban Planning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 691-705.

9. Roy, A. (2005). “Urban Informality. Towards an Epistemology of Planning”. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71/2.

10. The Habitat II Agenda refers to basic infrastructure and services as “to include the delivery of safe water, sanitation, waste management, social welfare, transport and communications facilities, energy, health and emergency services, schools, public safety, and the management of open spaces”. Source: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) (2015). Habitat III Issue Paper 18 - Urban Infrastructure and Basic Services, including Energy. p.1. Available online at: www.habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/Habitat-III-Issue-Paper-18_Urban-Infrastructure-and-Basic-Services-including-energy-2.0.pdf (accessed on 09/10/2018).

11. World Bank and UNHCS (Habitat) (1999). Cities Alliance for Cities Without Slums. Action Plan for Moving Slum Upgrading to Scale. Available online at: www.citiesalliance.org/cws-action-plan (accessed on 12/07/2018).

12. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) (12/07/2018). Participatory Slum Upgrading Programme (PSUP). Online page, www.unhabitat.org/urban-initiatives/initiatives-programmes/participatory-slum-upgrading/ (accessed on 12/07/2018).

13. United Nations (2016). Pretoria Declaration for Habitat III. “Informal Settlements”. Available online at: www.unhabitat.org/pretoria-declaration-on-informal-settlements/ (accessed on 12/07/2018).

7.References

43

14. United Nations (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online at: www.sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf (accessed on 12/07/2018).

15. Article 23 from: United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available online at: www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf (accessed 12/07/2018).

16. Climate and Development Knowledge Network (23/10/2016). Opinion: The New Urban Agenda - What’s in it for Developing Cities?. Available online at: www.cdkn.org/2016/10/opinion-new-urban-agenda-whats-in-it-for-developing-cities/?loclang=en_gb (accessed on 12/07/2018).

17. United Nations (2017). New Urban Agenda. New York: United Nations.

18. Cervero, R. (2000). Informal transport in the developing world. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat).

19. Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others; and (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”

Additionally, part 1 of Article 25 mentions that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

Source: United Nations (09/10/2018). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available at: www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ (accessed on 09/10/2018).

20. Global Land Tool Network (16/07/2018). Access to Land and Tenure Security. Online page: www.gltn.net/home/access-to-land-and-tenure-security/ (accessed on 16/07/2018).

21. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) (2015). Habitat III Issue Paper 22 – Informal Settlements. Available online at: www.unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Habitat-III-Issue-Paper-22_Informal-Settlements.pdf (accessed on 16/07/2018).

22. Global Land Tool Network (13/08/2018). Continuum of Land Rights. Online page: www.mirror.gltn.net/index.php/land-tools/gltn-land-tools/continuum-of-land-rights (accessed on 13/08/2018).

23. Hussmanns, R. (2002). Defining and Measuring Informal Employment. ILO. Available online at: www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/download/papers/meas.pdf (accessed on 19/07/2018).

24. International Labour Office (2018). Women and Men in the Informal Economy: a Statistical Picture. Geneva: ILO.

25. OECD (08/10/2018). Women and Informality. Online page: www.oecd.org/gender/data/womenandinformality.htm (accessed on 08/10/2018).

26. Akatch, S.O. & Kasuku, S.O. (2002). “Informal Settlements and the Role of Infrastructure: The case of Kibera, Kenya.” Discovery and Innovation. 14: 32-37.


Lave, R.E. and Mathias, R.G. (2009). “Paratransit Systems”. Transportation Engineering and Planning, (EOLSS), www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/C05/E6-40-02-03.pdf


47

If your organization would like to support or find out moreabout UN-Habitat‘s Urban Resilience work, please contact us at

[email protected]/urbanresilience

#UrbanResilience

/uresiliencehub

Upgrading from Informality Enhancer - Urban...

Documents

Transcript of Upgrading from Informality Enhancer - Urban...